Talk:Preposition and postposition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article may be too technical for a general audience.
Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details.

Contents

[edit] Archives

If you wish to participate in older discussions, please copy and paste the thread here.

I made the merger of postposition and preposition. I removed duplicate information and the very drawn-out and to me misplaced discussion about normative usage of English, including quotes from Churchill and Bishop. I don't feel that this very specific English prescriptivist material is relevant in an encyclopedic article about a general feature of grammar in any language.

Peter Isotalo 05:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting Issue

Just a minor point but it seems confusing that in the first section with multiple examples of prepositions, the bold typeface implies that those words are the prepositions when in fact they are not. Do you think this could be changed, perhaps putting the prepositions themselves in bold type. ThomDoughty (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Circumpositions?

Circumposition redirects here, but this article says nothing about circumpositions. I can only imagine that they must be two-part adpositions, with part before and part after: such as of __'s, perhaps? Someone care to add information on them? Ruakh 06:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is as far as I know no such thing as a circumposition in grammar and I can't find it in any of my general linguistic literature. The examples given in the original article were in German and Pushtu (Pashto?). The German example used was of a verb (fahren) with a verb particle (herum) combined with a preposition (um), which isn't the least bit relevant. I can't comment the Pushtu example, but I would like some confirmation from good sources.
Peter Isotalo 12:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. The term gets 666 Google hits, of which about a third seem to be linguistic, of which most seem to be about a kind of adposition. So, I guess there are probably about 200 relevant Google hits. This one suggests that circumpositions exist in Kurdish, but a Google-search for circumposition+Kurdish doesn't seem to pull up too much of worth.
So, I think maybe the article should just mention what "circumposition" is supposed to mean, and mention that it's much less common than pre- and postpositions, without giving any examples? Ruakh 21:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The Kurdish example seems to be questioned by some of the reviewers in the link. If it's to be included, I think it should have stronger support than something refered to by a third party (with good arguments) as "a relic of Kurdish linguistics".
Peter Isotalo 08:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
My interpretation is thus: the third party is saying that Selcan is making a mistake in applying the term "circumposition" (or its German equivalent) to structures in the Zazaki language. He's further inferring that the reason Selcan makes this mistake is that circumpositions are known to exist in Kurdish (a distinct, but neighboring and not-traditionally-recognized-as-distinct, language - at least, according to that page), and hence applying "circumposition" to Zazaki is "a relic of Kurdish linguistics." Still not the best reference ever, though . . . Ruakh 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

I am working on a substantial overhaul of this article, which at the moment contains some inaccuracies. Before I totally hijack the page, the current draft is visible in my userspace. CapnPrep 20:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Revert as necessary. CapnPrep 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page too smart for its own good

This page is too smart for its own good. For the linguist, the extra information I'm sure is nice, but when all I want is a simple-language definition for Preposition I don't want to have to learn new words. (This was the third site I went to.) Sorry, I'm not logged in and don't know how to insert my reference, but here's this - 2006, October, 20, 9:07 EST. And I'm either Colonel Kernel or Bill.

Have you tried the Wiktionary entry for preposition? --BrettR 15:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I hadn't, no. But to contradict my above comment, I guess I wanted more than a simple definition. I wanted something inbetween, which now makes me wonder where dictionaries end and encyclopedias begin. Regardless, one should lead into the other. I went backwards.
But still, as as an open, general encyclopedia, it should be open to all, by starting general, assuming ZERO knowledge of the specific topic or related topics. THEN, the technical stuff could and should follow for those who want it. It's much easier for knowledgeable people to skip over general information than vice-versa.
- ColonelKernel 02:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The Colonel is absolutely right. This page is more or less unreadable by now. After it was merged from the articles postposition and preposition, it was fairly short, but still had a reasonable amount of detail.[1] The article as it stands is a messy concoction and a mix of high and low as well as outright falsehoods or dubious claims. It seems that a lot of verb particles are included in the definition and there are what appears to be spurious claims of circumpositions in several European languages. Someone even tried to provide examples in both Chinese and Japanese without actually knowing enough about the languages and in the process managed to produce incorrect sentences.
I'm very tempted to revert it all to one of the shorter and simpler versions, keep some of the sources and dump the current version in a sub-page where all the hobby linguists can tinker around with excessive details until they manage to produce something that is actually readable to most audiences.
Peter Isotalo 12:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Strongly agree. This page is now written for an extremely narrowly focused specialist -- not the goal of Wikipedia. I would also vote for reinstating the very interesting discussion of ending sentences with prepositions that previously existed on this page. there was even an excellent poem on the subject -- useful material that makes this encyclopedia especially useful and user-friendly. If that material doesn't belong here (in this hypertechnical discussion of linguistic minutia) then maybe it should be on a new page, and this one can sink into the technocratic oblivion that it deserves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.255.22 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC).

Would propose recreating the prepositions page, and keeping this page as it is to provide technical linguistic information. Both are valid pages but neither suffices to cover the issues.

--Falstaf 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why the cleanup tag?

It's not at all obvious to me that this article is in need of cleanup, so please explain here why you feel that it is. —RuakhTALK 15:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This page is comically wordy and inaccessible. It does require cleanup. Preposition redirects here? 87.194.5.55 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

AB:-I feel like my head is going to explode. I've always found grammar inaccessible. The writer of this article has obviously devoted considerable amounts of time and effort, for which I am grateful. But I find myself so envious that I cannot access your knowledge. The referenced technical terms fly at me like bullets from a howitzer. Please do not take this personally. Your attempt is valient, and I am yet to find a book on grammar that doesn't leave me feeling bewildered. Examples, lots of examples help. And trying to minimize the use of other technical terms, or introducing them in a graded fassion. Assume that you are attempting to teach at stroke victem. I am not the smartest man in the world...but I am your audience, I want to possess the information you offer me, I want the benefit of your knowledge.

Thankyou for your endeavours and goodluck. I look forward to reading your reviewed article.

AB

[edit] Inaccessible

I came across this article looking for information on the common prohibition against ending sentences with a preposition, but this article just perplexed me. Having completed several courses on technical writing and editing, even I'm having trouble understanding this article. People who are less familiar with grammar are going to throw up their hands and leave. This article is too inaccessible to non-linguistics majors. blahpers 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same way, and I am a relatively learned person. Honestly, this article looks like it was run through one of those computer filters that complicates the text to the point of absurdity. Cernansky 01:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

  • For both of you, the "Simple English" Wikipedia (simple.wikipedia.org) has a much shorter article about prepositions.  I think you'll find the "Simple English" article will be quite adequate for your requirements.  K. Kellogg-Smith 03:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your condescending pretentiousness. However, your suggestion addresses neither of the issues raised. Clarityfiend 07:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I read this Wiki with a great deal of consternation, so much so that I decided to have a look at the talk page. I was further compelled to sign-up for an account so I could throw my two cents worth into the pile. This article needs to be cleaned up, simplified, and likely have the reference to other languages removed. This is the English Wiki and as such should probably stick to the English language, reserving the other languages for the appropriate Wiki. I am not the smartest person on the block, but would like to think I could read some simple information, however, there's nothing simple or informative about this page. Thank you. Maxthrust 19:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is in English, but it's certainly not just about English, and that's certainly not the intent. —RuakhTALK 20:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the people who have problems with this page. While "preposition" (which I feel should have its own entry) does not have to include only English uses of this part of speech, the article should serve people who want to read a basic definition of prepositions. I thought that Wikipedia--or at least an entry's main page--was supposed to provide basic information, not serve as a vehicle for extremely technical discussions (surely there are plenty of places on the Internet to do that!). Look at the following sentence:
The surface position of an adposition with respect to its complement allows us to define the following subclasses.
Now imagine that you are a person who is likely to look up "preposition" on Wikipedia. Would you find that helpful, or would you run? Phwtw 18:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Celtic

Adpositions are non-inflecting (or "invariant"); i.e., they do not have paradigms of forms (for different tenses, cases, genders, etc.) in the same way as verbs, adjectives, and nouns in the same language.

a reference somewhere to the Celtic languages by someone more knowledgeable than me would be helpful... --Explendido Rocha 09:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's also not completely true for the Semitic languages such as Hebrew, where personal pronouns are not used with prepositions; instead, the prepositions are inflected for gender, person, and number. (N.B. The prepositions don't agree with their objects; if their object is a normal noun or pronoun, then they just attach to it. Rather, it's only that if their object is a personal pronoun, then they inflect to contain it.) —RuakhTALK 15:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Position of prepositions

The article says "A preposition precedes its complement to form a prepositional phrase", but several of the examples of prepositions in the intro ("The following examples illustrate some uses of English prepositions") seem to contradict this. For example:

  • modifying verbs
    • sleep throughout the winter

where "throughout" comes after the verb it modifies.

  • complementing adjectives and adverbs
    • attentive to their needs

where "to" comes after the adjective it modifies.

Is there something wrong here, or am I just getting confused? Matt 19:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

The description is correct. In the former case, the preposition ("throughout") precedes its complement ("the winter"), producing a prepositional phrase ("throughout the winter") that follows and modifies a verb ("sleep"). In the latter case, the preposition ("to") precedes its complement ("their needs"), producing a prepositional phrase ("to their needs") that follows and modifies an adjective ("attentive"). Does that make sense? —RuakhTALK 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I never would have got that from the article. To me it's natural to assume that the thing called the "complement" in "a preposition precedes its complement" is meant to be the verb in the "modifying verbs" examples, and the adjective or adverb in the "complementing adjectives and adverbs" examples. All the more so in the latter case since the same word ("complement") is used. I am not confident about making any changes, but if you understand what I'm getting at and feel so inclined, I think a couple of words of clarification would help. Matt 21:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC).
In the latter example, "to their needs" is the complement of "attentive", not the other way around; but I see how it could be confusing. I'll see about rewriting a bit to be more clear. —RuakhTALK 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
In standard English, the word complement expresses a mutual relationship: if two things are complementary, the one is the complement of the other and vice versa. So in the case of the verb "dispense with", the word "dispense" and the word "with" are complementary parts that together form a single semantic unit. Neither the word "dispense" nor the word "with", in isolation, carries the same meaning, but they complement one another. --Jonadab, 2007 Dec 29 —Preceding comment was added at 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be using the word complement to mean the object of the preposition, but in the context of grammar the word complement normally has a different meaning. Indeed, it is used in this article with the other meaning. I would say that also using the same word to mean the object, especially when discussing relative positions, given that depending on language the relative positions of the object and the complement may be reversed from their positions in English, has the potential to be more than a little confusing, especially to a non-linguist. IMO it would be significantly preferable to use distinct terminology. --Jonadab, 2007 Dec 29

[edit] Removal of cleanup banner

As I understand it, the cleanup banner applies to articles with bad grammar, spelling, punctuation and/or organisation -- basically articles that are sloppily written. This article certainly is not sloppily written, so the banner is not warranted and I have removed it. From the comments above, it seems that the main complaint may be that the article is too technical and is inaccessible to the non-expert. In that case the {{technical}} banner might be more appropriate. Matt 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] preposition?

I chanced upon the article, and liked it a lot. It seems to me to contain a great deal of useful information. I gather, however, that some people find it "hard".

I would like to suggest moving the article to Preposition, by far the most common word for these beasties, and beginning something like this (slow onramp to the tougher bits):

A preposition is a part of speech that introduces a dependent clause. For example, in the sentence "I sleep until the alarm goes off.", "I" is the subject, "sleep" is the verb, and "until" is a preposition, introducing the dependent clause "until the alarm goes off". Common examples of prepositions include "by", "for", and "to".

Linguists sometimes distinguish between a "preposition", which preceeds a dependent clause, a "postposition", which follows a dependent clause, and as a rare case a "circumposition", which surrounds a dependent clause. Taken together, these three parts of speech are called "adpositions". Rick Norwood 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear some thoughts on the move suggested above, though silence implies consent. I also have a question. In the sentence "This is the store I go to." is "to" a postposition? Rick Norwood 14:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In my case, my silence implies that I really don't know whether that's a good idea; I can't decide. And no, to is a preposition, even in your example sentence; however, it's a stranded preposition. —RuakhTALK 14:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I'm going to make the changes discussed above. Rick Norwood 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • There are 3 pages involved:
    • These 3 pages' edit histories show no sign of page moves. This is a merge of 3 pages, not a cut-and-paste. All 3 pages have long histories. Best leave things as they are (or rename Adposition as Prepositions and postpositions, as I never heard of an adposition before reading these pages today). Anthony Appleyard 19:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • There needs to be a general article on adpositions, and if there is enough material on all three types separate articles on the three types. I'm am skeptical that there is enough material for all 4; should be one article, at Adposition with redirs from the 3 others to it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:56, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Postposition examples

The "-on" in the Hungarian word "asztalon", given as an example of a postposition, is a case suffix rather than a postposition (cf. the Finnish and Turkish examples under the heading "Case affixes" later in the article). I would have used "az asztal alatt" instead, but "under the table" wouldn't fit with the other examples, so I have deleted the Hungarian reference. Pecsorin 11:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move back to Preposition?

I just came to this page for the first time, and find that the move to Adposition seems extremely ill-advised, especially as it was a cut-and-paste of existing articles. But instead of moving this article back to Preposition, perhaps we should start a new article there that avoids the faults of this one. My only hesitation is that this would divorce the page from its edit history, which is generally considered a fault in Wikipedia. Comments? Penetrating wisdom? -- Rob C. alias Alarob 14:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not argue with itself, and so I think this part of speech should have one article. I would like that article to be called "preposition" but can't do that without the help of an administrator, and none has come forward. So, I'm going to follow the suggestion above, and move it to "preposition and postposition". Maybe at some later date it can be changed to "preposition". Rick Norwood 21:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
No one came forward because its five days on RM hadn't finished. Since "preposition" is an inaccurate title for the merged articles, I don't plan to move it further. I suppose the compromise is the current title. Dekimasuよ! 05:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And so it will probably remain, but the article itself notes that it is not uncommon for both prepositions and postpositions to be called prepositions. I had never heard of postpositions until I read the article. Rick Norwood 15:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely missed the listing on WP:RM, but given the history of the pages involved, I'm surprised this was handled as an uncontroversial move. I don't see evidence of any consensus in the ensuing discussion, either. And now the page has been moved, but not in accordance with the original proposal! This is strange. CapnPrep 16:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prepositions modifying another prepositional phrase

According to my understanding, until would be a preposition in the sentence: I wasn't feeling sick until after dessert. Should we add modifying a prepositional phrase to the list of uses for English prepositions? Or am I not parsing that correctly?Joshuajohanson 18:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That section is poorly written, but to put your example in its terms, "until after dessert" is modifying "wasn't feeling sick", so falls into the "modifying verbs" category. The "Classification by complement" section explains that prepositions can take prepositional phrases as complements. —RuakhTALK 19:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
O.K., I've rewritten that section to be more clear about what it's trying to say; what do you think? —RuakhTALK 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Easy identification for prepositions

The cat ran ____ the tree.

Any thing that fits the blank is a preposition —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abaac (talk • contribs) 15:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So "of" is not a preposition? —RuakhTALK 18:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

that is kooky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.157.166 (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, anything that fits the blank in The cat ran ____ the tree. is a preposition (assuming the blank stands for a single word). This helps us generate prepositions but does nothing much to limit them. It also says nothing about of. (Logic 101!) So how about of? It too is a preposition, though in some analyses it's instead a case marker in many instances. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Out"

I'm sure out is a preposition, but I don't see it anywhere listed as an example. Not being a native English speaker, I don't know where to list it. Also, it might be a good idea to touch the subject of 'composite' preposition (as I call them), like 'from out of' (the rain). — Edokter • Talk • 01:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Out is in the List of English prepositions. And there is an example "from under the bed" in the Preposition and postposition#Classification by complement section. CapnPrep (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "strict English" and its etiquette

I've removed the following from the first paragraph:

It is considered poor form in strict English to end a sentence with a preposition.

It's specifically about English, whereas the article is not. It's about a minor aspect of preposition stranding, which itself is rather unusual (common in English but not in many languages). It's more specifically about something called "strict English", a concept that's new to me. I presume that this means "formal English" or similar. All sorts of things are considered "poor form" about English, formal or otherwise, by this or that group of people: various self-appointed language experts derive livelihoods from propagating such shibboleths, but we don't have to take the Strunks and Whites of the world seriously in what is not an etiquette manual but an encyclopedia. This particular "rule" has a history of 336 years (see the Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, p.627, fn 11) but it's not part of the language. Arguably it nevertheless deserves a mention, but not in the first paragraph of an article about adpositions in general. (Popular misconceptions about English grammar, anyone?) -- Hoary (talk) 10:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)